It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Self-parking Volvo ploughs into journalists...

page: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: theghostfaceentity
-Claps for volvo- LMFAO that autonomous vehicle did the right thing lol....






posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

So Logan's Run was real.....



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: gspat

just watched that - and i have serious doubts that the car was in " self park mode "


I thought I was watching Jackass - it looks like the driver just accelerated into the people standing in front of the car.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That is exactly what he did.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
well if you have to run over someone, journalists are a great option.
They are just saying that "extra feature" nonsense as an excuse.
the car is obviously sentient and knew it could get away with attempted murder.

so now cars will have features you need to buy separately like DLC for videogames?
Progress!


Actually yes, within 2 years I hear cars will be upgradeable via a new system with all sorts of unlockable content.

DLC indeed, you can add a tune to your car auto upgrade, its coming real soon.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: BentBone
a reply to: gspat

I just don't get today's big business.

You would think some high and mighty CEO would make sure bright and smart programmers are hired for important projects

And you would think they would take safety first into account.

I am not a programmer but I would program for safety first function later.

What's up programmers, are sensors expensive.


I am a programer so let me give a possible explanation. Computers are pretty dumb, one of the biggest issues in computer science these days is identifying an object from a camera. It's actually a pretty old problem, the best minds in the world have been trying to solve this for over 50 years now.

Let me give an example, lets say I have a garbage bag full of dirt on the ground. The bag has an irregular shape and a dark color, how as a human or animal do you distinguish that object from a rock by sight? A rock of sufficient size isn't something you would want to drive over but as a bag of mulch there's no problem. In psychology it's called templating and it's how we can tell the difference between two horses that look slightly different but we can still tell that they're both a horse. Perhaps you've seen this at work with a dog, where they tend to think horses are just giant dogs because of how their brain templates objects (when they can't associate different smells to horse/dog). Another example would be taking a photograph and having the computer automatically scan the photo for an image of a bird. When these things can be done they are extremely rudimentary.

What probably happened at Volvo is that they made a sensor package that could detect objects of a certain size, and then they made an advanced sensor that could tell the difference between certain objects such as knowing the difference between a bird that would fly away (and thus not mess up the auto park feature) and a car. The execs at Volvo didn't think things through and saw it as lots of extra code, and probably a few patents that they wanted to then market as an additional feature while the coders were probably told to try and determine if the object behind the car does or doesn't fit the profile of another car and use that as the more advanced sensor.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Very interesting post, but the fact remains the driver disengaged the auto park feature, it wasn't a problem with the car at all, just plain old user error.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
This proves again that robotics can't be fully trusted .. The trails of autonomously driving by Google are now life in different countries . I do not know if there are any known incidents . They are going to be trails on the public road here in December. Looking at this incident , I'll hope everything. Will turn out well..



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

^ this prooves that people dont read threads



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
This proves again that robotics can't be fully trusted .. The trails of autonomously driving by Google are now life in different countries . I do not know if there are any known incidents . They are going to be trails on the public road here in December. Looking at this incident , I'll hope everything. Will turn out well..


Autonomous driving would actually be quite safe. It's the mix between people and computers that creates a danger because neither can be confident in what the other is going to do.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

lol you're right , but do you really think that it will handle all difficult situations in traffic , just as we would react in traffic . I first have to see that even with human avoidance control , its not an AI to my knowledge?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
Could be but it's not self learning , and can't make decisions upfront. for example if theres a traffic jam and a heavy truck crash into to a traffic jam , you get a domino effect of this crash . if you happen to be looking into a rear mirror and noticed the crash you can decide to divert the from the traffic jam or stay in the traffic jam , depends ofcouse if there's a emergency strip or exit..



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Aazadan
Could be but it's not self learning , and can't make decisions upfront. for example if theres a traffic jam and a heavy truck crash into to a traffic jam , you get a domino effect of this crash . if you happen to be looking into a rear mirror and noticed the crash you can decide to divert the from the traffic jam or stay in the traffic jam , depends ofcouse if there's a emergency strip or exit..


That's where you get into advantages if every car is being run by a computer. You can basically halve the number of traffic lanes you need because following distances can be massively reduced. This allows for every single car to have an escape route when an accident does happen. That prevents the pileup while diverting traffic around the jam.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
So let me get this straight... People want the convenience of a car, without the responsibility, or the discipline of having to EARN a proper driving license (not one of the joke ones handed out in the US these days).

Well guess what, this conundrum was solved damn near 100years ago!!!

It's called..... DRUMROLL PLEASE......... Take the facking BUS or a TAXI !!

This whole self-driving car nonsense is freakin INSANE. But I'll be happy when the first self-driving car wrecks into me and the settlement is enough for me to move far far away from the insane world we live in.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
It's called..... DRUMROLL PLEASE......... Take the facking BUS or a TAXI !!


The last time I took a taxi it was $140 for a 10-15 minute ride. Bus systems, in the places that still have them see their lines reduced by the day.

Neither is a viable alternative.

You can walk, but walking is dangerous. A couple years ago I didn't have a car. In the year I had to walk everywhere I was hit by cars 3 different times because they weren't paying attention. Pedestrians are quite literally invisible. The other alternative is a bicycle, but like walking bicycles offer limited range. If your work is 45 miles away and the weather isn't very good, it's simply not viable to bike that distance and back each day, and should you need to use a highway (which don't have walk/bike lanes) you're in trouble.

Let me explain this for you in math terms.
If you drive a car at an average of 45mph, a



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Actually, that's the model google is planning to follow...

You call for a car, it comes, takes you to your destination and leaves.

There won't even be a steering wheel.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join